1988 (10) TMI 47

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....xt. P 31. Petitioner is a manufacturer of tread rubber. Apart from being a manufacturer, he is also active in spear-heading the movement against the highhanded actions of the officials of the Collectorate of Central Excise, Cochin. The officials have been on a rampage with raids, searches and seizures and harassment against small scale industrialists which has rendered it impossible for such indus....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....xt. P 31 which the petitioner challenges on various grounds numbering 63. 3. Ext. P 31 is dated 29th March, 1988. Petitioner has submitted its explanation in relation thereto. The adjudication proceedings are yet to go on. The adjudication has to be by the first respondent. Though Shri S. Parameswaran, Counsel for the petitioner put forward his contentions about mala fides of the entire departm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... show cause. The various points raised by the petitioner including the alleged interpolation require enquiry with reference to the facts, evidence and circumstances of the case. Such a detailed enquiry is possible only before the first respondent, at which the petitioner will necessarily have their opportunities to put forward their case and to lead evidence. An enquiry into these aspects of the m....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... therefore, heard again on this application. Since however, nothing has been done in the petitioner's case by way of granting rewards or otherwise, I do not find any cause of action for the petitioner to question the scheme at this stage. In any case, the adjudicatory authority namely the first respondent, has necessarily to perform his statutory duty of adjudication. So long as that is not tainte....